Do Your Employees Know How To Work The Projector?

I've seen a few blog posts over the last few days about the lack of innovation that exists in large companies. One of the fundamental lessons I recall from business school was this: success leads to arrogance and arrogance leads to failure. The notion was that companies that get successful and big will inevitably become comfortable with their own success.  This comfort will encourage them to stop innovating and start putting bureaucracy in place that will protect what they have -- and that will eventually cause them to fail.  It’s a natural cycle that always exists. So my professor was encouraging us to be conscious of it so our companies might avoid that fate.

Over the years, I've met with companies big and small -- from startups with fewer than 10 employees all the way up to Fortune 50 companies with hundreds of thousands of employees. A small thing that I’ve noticed is that if the company has more than about 1,000 employees you can guarantee that something will go wrong with the presentation tools in their office. You can’t get online. The projector is broken. Nobody knows how to turn the videos screens on.  The cabinet storing the CPU is locked.  Literally, 95% of the time, something will go wrong when you're presenting to a big company.

This never happens when I meet with startups. Everyone knows how things work, there’s less security and bureaucracy and even the most senior people in the room know how to work the projector.

Obviously, on the surface, this observation seems meaningless. But I do believe it’s symbolic of the arrogance that exists naturally in a large company. Employees at big, successful companies either don't believe they need to know how to do simple things like this or the company has put so much bureaucracy in place that they're unable to learn.

If you're an executive at a big, successful company ask around and see if your employees are able to work the projector. If they're not, I wonder what else they can't do.

I Like Mike (Part 2)

Regular readers know that I'm a big fan of Mike Bloomberg. I wrote about him in an earlier post back in 2008. Chris Dixon interviewed him for TechCrunch’s Founder Stories series last November.  It's an insightful and inspiring interview -- I recommend watching when you have some time.  Here's some of the highlights/insights for me. I’m paraphrasing Mike, of course.

• One of the goals of New York City is to have a park within a ten minute walk of every New Yorker.
• The business goals for New York isn’t to pay companies to come here through subsidies, it’s to create an environment where people want to live.  That means great culture, parks, schools and reduced crime.
• Big companies are like governments in that they setup very reasonable bureaucracies to minimize risk.  But that bureaucracy is what prevents them from innovating.  That’s why we need startups.
• The United States is committing suicide by not giving citizenship to foreign entrepreneurs.
• People talk about making New York more of a hub for college education, much like Boston.  It turns out that there are more undergraduate and graduate students in New York City then there are people in Boston.
• There are 13 public golf courses in New York City and Staten Island's land mass is almost 25% park.

Entrepreneur = Salesperson

At the start of the first day of class my Entrepreneurship professor in business school said two things to the class.

The first was, “if you don’t want to do sales every day, all day, then don’t be an entrepreneur”.  Then he asked everyone that was in sales to raise their hand. After about a third of the class raised their hand he said, “90% of you are not truly salespeople, you’re order takers, because you don’t have a quota and you aren’t getting rejected every single day”. I’m paraphrasing, of course.

While harsh, there’s lot of truth to this. Entrepreneurs are salespeople and salespeople are entrepreneurs.  They put their success and failure out there for everyone to see. A lot of other roles in an organization can take cover behind things like shared goals and muddled metrics and a lack of a direct cause and effect on revenue. Salespeople can’t. They have an individual goal, with clear metrics and a direct impact on revenue.  Like the entrepreneur, salespeople put themselves on the line.

Jim Keenan had a great post on this a while back. To emphasize the point, I’ll post an excerpt from it here:

So why doesn’t everyone want to be a sales person?

Because  . . .

It takes guts to only have HALF your salary guaranteed

It is sucks to be rejected on a daily basis

It’s hard calling up people you don’t know and asking them to meet you

It’s scary asking strangers for things

It’s uncomfortable challenging people

It’s tough being held accountable to black and white metrics. You can’t hide from the numbers

It’s not easy having your results constantly compared, in the open, to your peers

It’s not easy losing

It’s tough being fully accountable for your own success or failure

It’s not fun doing something where you can fail so quickly after be successful

Not everyone likes being in the spotlight

Unpredictability SUCKS

Most people don’t want to be in sales, because it takes GUTS! It takes guts most don’t have.

SecondMarket & the Tech Bubble

There was a fantastic column the other day on Reuters written by Felix Simon titled, Facebook’s SecondMarket Puppets. The column points out how investors that put their money in Facebook using SecondMarket while Facebook was private have actually lost money since the company went public. This is interesting – and scary – for companies with upcoming IPOs that are allowing their illiquid shares to be traded on a secondary exchange. In theory, the value of SecondMarket was that you could get in on a hot company pre-IPO and make big bucks if/when they went public. But it seems that this isn’t a guarantee. Simon’s key insight is this: 

…it’s increasingly looking as though shares in private tech-companies are a bit like fine art prices: a place for the rich to spend money and feel great about owning something very few other people can have. The minute they become public and democratic, they lose a lot of their cachet.  And a lot of their value.

The level of hype propping up the valuations of some of the hot private and public internet companies is enough to keep me far away from these securities...and SecondMarket.

Soap Operas & The Internet

You may not know that soap operas are called soap operas because they were originally created as a way to sell more soap.  Putting a quality drama on television during the day is a great way to get peoples' attention.  Sprinkle in some ads for soap and you have a pretty nice business model.  This is what's known as the "interruption-based" advertising model.  The viewer shows up to watch a drama and gets interrupted every 10 or 15 minutes with profitable ads.

Many of the top internet companies are beginning to look a lot like soap operas.

Facebook is covered with irrelevant display ads and requires you to install all kinds of apps to work effectively.

Irrelevant advertisements have started to pop up in my Twitter feed.

LinkedIn has gone from a super clean site to a mess.

Spotify and Pandora ads are poorly targeted and happen too frequently.

Don’t get me wrong.  I recognize that these are businesses that need to generate revenue and I have no problem with them doing so.  I guess I’m just a bit disappointed that as internet companies have evolved into real businesses, they’ve defaulted to old fashioned disruptive marketing to make money. Each of the companies above have built great products and innovated significantly.  You can't say the same about their business models. 

The Facebook IPO

Facebook is set to go public today at a $100 billion dollar valuation.  For context, General Electric is worth about $199 billion.

GE was founded by Thomas Edison in 1890, has more than 300,000 employees and is a market leader in appliances, aviation, consumer electronics, electrical distribution, energy, finance, healthcare, lighting, oil & gas, rail, software & services and water treatment.

Facebook was founded in 2003, has about 4,000 employees and is a market leader in, well, display advertisting.  

It's official.  The world has changed. 

The Start-up of You

I read Reid Hoffman's (LinkedIn's co-founder) new book last week, the Startup of You: Adapt to the Future, Invest in Yourself and Transform Your Career.

The thesis of the book is that everyone (from CEOs down to the lowest level employees) should view themselves as entrepreneurs.  It argues that you need to manage your career the same way an entrepreneur would manage a new enterprise.

I agree with this concept completely, and for those that haven't been exposed to this thesis, it's worth the read.  If you're already familiar with this career approach, you won't find much value in the book.  It describes the concept effectively, gives several practical tips and action items to help get you there but largely it comes off as a long advertisement for LinkedIn.

That said, there were a few valuable insights that I took from the book.  Here are two:

The first is about managing your network and asking for help/favors.  When you ask someone for something like advice or an introduction, try hard to give that person something first: a link to an article they might be interested in, an insight you picked up that might help their business, a connection or recommendation that might help them do their job better.  Also, give them some thoughtful and insightful context on what you need.  Once you've done this, then ask for the favor.  Give them a "gift" before you ask them for help.  This is a neat approach to managing your network.

The second is about risk.  The book cites a Neurophysicist that explains that to keep our ancestors alive, Mother Nature evolved a brain that routinely tricked them into making three mistakes: overestimating threats, underestimating opportunities, and underestimating resources (for dealing with threats and fulfilling opportunities).  This caused our ancestors to be very good at avoiding dangerous tribes or animals that could kill them in favor of seeking out opportunities for more food or shelter or resources.  While this was a practical approach at the time (they had to avoid death), this instinct is far less applicable to the world we live in today; a bad investment or a poor career decision isn't going to kill us.  The book encourages the reader to keep this instinct in mind when navigating your career and to try to resist it.  You're likely vastly overestimating the risk and potential pain that could come from most career decisions.

In short, the book is a fairly engaging and quick read and the message is spot on.  If this is new concept for you, I'd definitely recommend picking up a copy.

The Business Model Test

A simple way to think about the viability of a new business idea is to use the logic test and the economic test:

1. The Logic Test: does the business make sense?  Is it easy to explain the value it will provide and how it will make money?  You can't understand its viability if you can't understand these things.
2. The Economic Test: once you've established that the business idea makes sense, now consider whether it can work profitably.  Space travel is a good example of a business that passes the Logic Test but not the Economic Test.  Certainly there would be a lot of people that would like to travel to space for the weekend, but with the current technology it simply can't be done profitably.  Kozmo.com -- the famous dot-com bust -- that promised free, one-hour delivery of things like CDs, DVDs, candy and magazines is another example.  It's just not possible to deliver a pack of gum to someone within an hour at a profit.

Once these two tests have been passed, there are of course dozens of other factors to consider.  But I've found this framework to be helpful in discussing a new idea's viability.  

Bottom's Up Management

Joel Spolsky had a great post the other day laying out his unique approach to management at startups.  I’d recommend reading the entire post when you get a chance but I’ve re-blogged some of the key excerpts below.

Most TV management is of the “command and control” variety. The CEO makes a decision, and tells his lieutenants. They convey this important decision to the teams, who execute on the CEO’s decision. It’s top-down management. All authority and power and decisions flow from the top. How could it work any other way?

This system probably works very well when you are trying to organize a team of manual laborers with interchangeable skills to sweep up the ticker tape in the street after the Giants parade BECAUSE THE GIANTS WON THE SUPER BOWL IF YOU DID NOT NOTICE.

The “management team” isn’t the “decision making” team. It’s a support function. You may want to call them administration instead of management, which will keep them from getting too big for their britches.

Administrators aren’t supposed to make the hard decisions. They don’t know enough. All those super genius computer scientists that you had to recruit from MIT at great expense are supposed to make the hard decisions. 

Think about how a university department organizes itself. There are professors at various ranks, who pretty much just do whatever the heck they want. Then there’s a department chairperson who, more often than not, got suckered into the role. The chairperson of the department might call meetings and adjudicate who teaches what class, but she certainly doesn’t tell the other professors what research to do, or when to hold office hours, or what to write or think.

And yes, you’re right, Steve Jobs didn’t manage this way. He was a dictatorial, autocratic asshole who ruled by fiat and fear. Maybe he made great products this way. But you? You are not Steve Jobs. You are not better at design than everyone in your company. You are not better at programming than every engineer in your company. You are not better at sales than every salesperson in the company.

A couple thoughts:

This is a great post.  I love the idea of flipping management on its head in a knowledge organization.  Your most junior employees are highly paid and extremely intelligent.  They should have lots of authority over how they do their jobs.  But often what works in theory doesn't work in practice.  Employees need a strong vision from the top and often need to be motivated to push through the challenges that inevitably come up.  While I agree that "management" can come from the bottom up, strong "leadership" from the top remains critical.

One final note:  I see Joel's point on this, but the analogy of a university isn't a good one.  Most universities are extremely inefficient, particularly compared to a tech startup.  I wrote a post a while back on the inefficiencies of the university system.

Pinterest

A lot has been written about Pinterest, the social photo sharing website, in the last few weeks.  Fastest company ever to get to 10 million monthly uniques.  Very impressive.  What's even more impressive is how they're monetizing these users at a very early stage with a somewhat brilliant idea.  Here's how it works:

• I post a link to a pair of sneakers that I like from say, Sports Authority, to my Pinterest page
• You see the image and click on the link
• Pinterest runs an instant query to determine whether or not Sports Authority has an affiliate program
• If they have one, the link is automatically converted to Sports Authority's affiliate link and you're sent to Sports Authority's site
• You make a purchase from Sports Authority
• Pinterest takes their commission

A very innovative (and frankly gutsy) idea.  Twitter and Facebook are probably kicking themselves for not thinking of it years ago.  

A Sales Pipeline & Process for Startups

The other day an entrepreneur was asking me how to best setup and monitor a sales pipeline and process.  I thought I'd post my answer here.  Three simple steps: Step One: Setup Stages.  I like to use these six:

1. Qualified: you've identified the right individual to speak to
2. Meeting Set (with right individual)
3. Meeting Held (with right individual)
4. Proposal (your proposal has been received by the prospect)
5. Verbal (prospect has agreed to the terms of your proposal)
6. Closed Won (signed contract received)

Step Two: Identify your "conversion angles" for each stage of the process.  That is, what are the secrets to getting the sale from one stage to the next?  For example, to qualify a lead it might mean identifying the person's job title and name by using LinkedIn or Hoovers.  To get an opportunity from verbal to close it might be putting a product launch date on the IT team's calendar or a price break in return for a quicker close.  Putting conversion angles for each stage down in writing is critical -- start with at least two angles for each stage.

Step Three: Identify the bottlenecks.  Look at last quarter or even the current week (if you have enough opportunities) and place them in the appropriate stage.  Identify which conversions are working and which are not.  See the sample analysis below:

Based on this analysis, here's what's working and not:

Working: Qualifying Leads, Holding Meetings that get set

Not working: Setting meetings, Sending proposals out of meetings

With this information the team can dive into the details of these conversions to find out what's slowing the process down.  Is it effort?  Is it resources?  The angles?  Are some team members converting this well and others not?  When this converts quickly, what are people doing?  Are there specific segments of clients that are converting better than others?  Why?  Dive into the problems with these conversions.  To add a layer of complexity, you can add a column showing the number of days that opportunities are in each stage.

This kind of analysis is valuable as a one off, but it will be even more valuable as time goes on.  Managers can look at how these conversions are changing week over week or month over month.  Relative data is always more valuable than a snapshot in time.

Even with a good sales process, there can still be holes that need to be patched.  Different reps may interpret the stages differently or you may need to add steps to the process to have more transparency.  To deal with the potential holes in the process, in parallel, I like to monitor what I call "tipping points".  Tipping points are pieces of information, insights and actions taken by the prospect that increase my confidence that the deal is legitimate and moving at the right pace.  Tipping points are crucial to keeping a sales team and a sales process on track.

This post is already getting a bit long.  I'll write a post on tipping points in the next few weeks.

A Couple More Thoughts on Enterprise Tech Versus Consumer Tech

Two other quick thoughts on this topic... Why is enterprise tech behind consumer tech?

1. Slower development cycles: B2C companies can innovate and release much faster than B2B (often B2B product changes need multiple approvals), "MVP" as a development strategy doesn't go over well with big companies

2. Many large companies (especially banks) are still on old operating systems and web browsers -- many top banks still use IE6.  This requires enterprise providers to dumb down their products and allows for less innovation.  I don't think Facebook or Youtube are even operational in IE6